Bombay High Court Fakira Shamrao Sormare-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 4 August, 2010
Bench: A. V. Potdar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2007 Fakira Shamrao Sormare,
Age-30 years, Occu-Agriculture,
R/o.Khasgaon, Tal.Jafarabad,
Dist. Jalna APPLICANT VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENT Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for applicant. Mr.P.P.More, learned APP for State
CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.
DATE : 04/08/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Farad-sheet shows that this revision was admitted vide order dated 21/04/2007 and the applicant was released on bail by the same order. Within meantime, the sentence was suspended in terms of prayer clause ‘D’ of the revision.
2. Rule.
3. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. Heard learned counsel for applicant and respondent. It 2
appears that the applicant herein was convicted by the learned J.M.F.C. Jafarabad in RCC No.73/2004 for the offence punishable u/s. 498A of The IPC and was sentenced to suffer SI for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- i.d. to suffer further SI for one month. It appears that the applicant, who is accused in the said criminal case, preferred criminal appeal no.63/2006 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, who by judgment and order dated 07/04/2007, dismissed the appeal.
5. As stated in the opening paragraph of this revision, being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Jalna in Criminal Appeal No.63/2006, the appellant in the appeal preferred this revision application challenging the order dated 07/04/2007, which came to be admitted by the order of this Court dated 21/04/2007.
6. The relation between the applicant and second respondent in Cri.Appl.No.3038/2010 is not under dispute as husband and wife. Today while allowing Cri.Appl.No.3038/2010, permission was granted to file the Deed of Compounding on record. Contents therein shows that now the matter is settled out of court between the parties. Now the original complainant do not want to pursue the said revision, but in view of the settlement, it is prayed that leniency to be shown to the applicant by allowing the criminal revision.
7. The offence punishable u/s. 498(A) is not compoundable. But 3
as observed by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others Versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, SC 1386, and as observed by this Court in Cri.Appl.No.1847/2010, decided on 21/06/2010, in the matter of Bhavika Manoj Sonar versus Manoj Sonar, in para no.8 and 9, which read as follows :
8. During the course of submissions, both the sides placed reliance on the rulling given by the Apex Court in the matter of B.S.Joshi and others versus State of Haryana and another, reported in AIR 2003, SC 1386 wherein it is observed that the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye versus State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, does not lay down any general proposition limiting power of quashing the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint as vested in Section 482 of The Cr.P.C. or extraordinary power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Therefore if for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, quashing of FIR becomes necessary, Section 320 would not be a bar to the exercise of power of quashing. It is, however, a different matter depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether to exercise or not such a power. It is further observed in para no.12 of the said judgment that the special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the Court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.
4
9. So far as the facts of the matter before the Apex Court is concerned, there was matrimonial dispute between the parties, which was settled by the parties out of Court, but by virtue of hurdle about compounding of offences u/s. 320(1) of The Cr.P.C., the offences can be compounded by the parties without leave of the court and by virtue of the provisions u/s. 320(2) of The Cr.P.C. The question arose, if the offence, which do not cover to be compounded, either under Sub Clause 1 or 2 of Section 320 of The Cr.P.C., but in the interest of justice and to maintain the harmony between the parties, and particularly in the matrimonial matters, where due to some mis-understanding or otherwise, criminal cases are filed, but later on after the clouds of doubt were over and the parties have genuinely agreed to settle the dispute finally, then it is observed in para no.15 onwards of the judgment that in such cases, after examining genuineness of the facts, the High Court can use its inherent powers and can quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the Cr.P.C. does not limit or affect the powers u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C.
8. As stated earlier, the relation between the parties is not under dispute, and the parties are now entered into an agreement and intend to compound the offence, for which permission is granted, and as observed in above two paragraphs, even though in the strict sense 5
of Law, offence punishable u/s. 498(A) is not compoundable, but in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s. 482 of The Cr.P.C., this Court may allow the parties to compound the offence. In view of this, as the parties are allowed to compound the offence in Cri.Appl.No.3038/2010, this revision is allowed and the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below is hereby set aside. The revision applicant is hereby acquitted. Fine amount, if any paid, to be refunded to the applicant.
9. Rule made absolute as indicated above.
10. Revision application stands disposed of accordingly. (A.V.POTDAR, J.)
khs/AUG 2010/cri.rev.3038-10
